Wayne, a mud-pack, when conceived ideologically, is still a mud-pack. The idea, even when politically conceived, is still mud. How objective is mud ...

Quote:

Mud would always be objective, but the ideology you referenced in relation would almost always be subjective.

Exactly. This is all. We could end it here because I think you understand what I am saying and have been saying all along. Except that you go on to say that ....

Quote:

... this question reinforces the futility of such a discussion given the lack of understanding between what is objective and subjective it displays.

If there is a lack of understanding between objective and subjective, it it on the part of ideologies which are clearly subjective. How objective is mud? VERY objective. As are all naturally occurring materials. There is no ideology in materials. Borders, however, are ideologically conceived and therefore subjective.

Borders are made of mud. Mud is mud. What are borders?

And what do you mean, ... "the ideology I referenced ... " What ideology are you talking about since I haven't offered one? Ideology is the stuff of borders. Ideology is the idea behind the mud. If the ideas did not exist, mud still would, but it wouldn't be organized into the structure we call a "border". Both mud and borders are things, but borders are man made while mud is not. That's all. It's so simple, no?

And DO remember that it was you that quoted this author:

"....Examples of objective reality would include the position of objects in space, the chemical structure of molecules, the force of gravity, and planetary orbits."

And I might add ....mud, soil, dirt, bricks, etc.

The author you cited went on to say that .... "Examples of subjective reality include all our opinions, ideas, and words for molecules and planets, ... "

Molecules are part of both mud, and the walls we make of mud.

" ..... whether things are good or bad or right or wrong, all thoughts and emotions, political ideologies, religions, and any social phenomenon. In other words, most of what we call reality is political opinion is a different thing. Actually subjective reality, and we often confuse subjective reality with objective reality, mainly because it seems so real that it seems impossible to us that it actually exists only within the human mind."

Like borders ...... which are made out of mud .... objective mud. The meaning we give to this mud is subjective. While mud is objective, the meaning we give to mud is subjective.

The author you provided also stated that ...

"Subjective reality can also seem like objective reality when many people agree on and share the subjective reality."

And have we not agreed that mud can be borders? Mud is objective ... borders are nothing more or less than the meaning we give to them. Borders are not real and no arguing for the objectivity of mud can make them so.

Was it me that brought up ideology? Probably. Since I am just a "little" concerned about ideology, I may have been the one who brought it up. 'Ideology' is dangerous, both of the religious and nationalistic kind. If it was me who brought it up, I stand accused. Paint me with it, because it is exactly this that I would love to talk about.

Quote:

I would never have guessed from the way you have tried to inject it into the discussion.Ideology is used to decide where a border is to be placed.

Ideology is the border !! No amount of mud or concrete or wood or any other naturally occurring material will make it so. Ideology is the border.

Quote:

Ummm no. Ideology is not a border or it would never change due to outside influences.

No. No. If "WE" did not have some ideas about why or how the planet needed to be separated into these ideas of countries and nationalism, borders would not exist! The borders, all of them, are conceptual. They are ideas. They are ideological. The very fact that borders change due to "outside influences", or whatever influences, is testimony to the fact of their subjectivity. We move the mud around. We move the structures around as our ideas change, as our ideologies change, as our political motivations change.

Quote:

As I stated, ideology is used in the decision of where a border will exist,

Ideology IS the border. The "where" borders exist is still ideological. Since borders are purely ideological in there very conception, wherever they are placed must also be ideological. It is not about "where", but rather, the very concept of borders!

Quote:

but it is not a border which can be determined by an outside observer.

Outside or inside. The observer can only observe material which has been placed in certain locations due to ideology.

If ideology did not place the mud or brick or wire in certain places for certain ideas, then what did?

What power does mud or any other naturally occurring material have? We give those objective material subjective meanings.

Quote:

Yes, that is true to a very large extent since border placement is subjective in many cases,

In ALL cases. ALL. Unless there happens to be a river, an ocean, a gulf that divides land mass in which case, we have naturally occurring space between land masses which have no need of ideology.

Quote:

but the discussion was whether a border was objective and it is because the materials of which it is made is objective.

I have no argument that the materials used are objective.

Quote:

Now, the border between two middle eastern desert countries, for example, will be more subjective because they are not able to be marked by those objective materials as well.

Or the border between the US and Canada which is ideologically conceived over much mountainous terrain. Yet the map makers seem to know where these borders exist. But the powers that be only erect the brick and mortar at certain places. Both the 'borders' that only exist on maps over the mountainous terrain, and the ones that have been erected with brick and mortar, are subjective.

Mud is mud, as is metal and wood, and whatever other material that could be used to place a naturally occurring material as symbolic of an ideology. Is it so radical to see the illusion of borders? It's not radical at all.

Quote:

The symbolic aspect is subjective too. For example the swastika used in the Nazi symbolism has a much older connotation which is far less sinister.

Yes. The swastika is an ancient symbol which means "good fortune, luck and well-being". But let's please remember that even the letters of the English language (or any language) are nothing more than symbols. And words are symbols too. But the word or symbol is not the "actual" thing. They are only representative. Often the words obscure the actuality. Just as ideologies do.

Mud replaced by any other material is still material. What significance are you willing to give it? What word? What symbol? What representation? What idea?

Quote:

The significance that it is a border.

We give it this significance, but on it's own, it is nothing but mud.

Quote:

That may be important or very important depending on the location.

Again, we give it significance regardless of location. It is not about location; it is about the subjectivity of a humanly conceived concept which would never be here, there, or anywhere, except for ideology.

Quote:

The border between the US and Canada, for example, would not be as significant as you approach as the border between North and South Korea. One is much more likely get you killed if you try to cross it illegally.

Yes. And this is why I am just a "little" concerned with ideologies of any kind. They are generally divisive.

Wayne, a mud-pack, when conceived ideologically, is still a mud-pack. The idea, even when politically conceived, is still mud. How objective is mud ...

Quote:

Mud would always be objective, but the ideology you referenced in relation would almost always be subjective.

Exactly. This is all. We could end it here because I think you understand what I am saying and have been saying all along. Except that you go on to say that ....

Quote:

... this question reinforces the futility of such a discussion given the lack of understanding between what is objective and subjective it displays.

If there is a lack of understanding between objective and subjective, it it on the part of ideologies which are clearly subjective. How objective is mud? VERY objective. As are all naturally occurring materials. There is no ideology in materials. Borders, however, are ideologically conceived and therefore subjective.

This is where you fail and have failed from the start. The PLACEMENT of the border is subjective, but the borders are often clearly marked as such and thus are objective. This means someone from another planet could see a border and understand there is a divsion along that marked course. They would not know why the division was made but they would be able to see the division.

Quote:

Borders are made of mud. Mud is mud. What are borders?

Objective as you say mud is, but then return to the claim of subjectivity for some strange reason.

Quote:

And what do you mean, ... "the ideology I referenced ... " What ideology are you talking about since I haven't offered one?

You referenced ideology, not I. Wayne, a mud-pack, when conceived ideologically, is still a mud-pack. The idea, even when politically conceived, is still mud. How objective is mud ...

Quote:

Ideology is the stuff of borders. Ideology is the idea behind the mud. If the ideas did not exist, mud still would, but it wouldn't be organized into the structure we call a "border". Both mud and borders are things, but borders are man made while mud is not. That's all. It's so simple, no?

Evidently not as you still seem to have issues with understanding that being man-made does not make something subjective.

Quote:

And DO remember that it was you that quoted this author:

"....Examples of objective reality would include the position of objects in space, the chemical structure of molecules, the force of gravity, and planetary orbits."

And I might add ....mud, soil, dirt, bricks, etc.

Which would remain objective in any structure in which they were combined.

Quote:

The author you cited went on to say that .... "Examples of subjective reality include all our opinions, ideas, and words for molecules and planets, ... "

Molecules are part of both mud, and the walls we make of mud.

Yes, and you could call them "goo" because the WORD for "molecule" is subjectve not the structure itself.

Quote:

" ..... whether things are good or bad or right or wrong, all thoughts and emotions, political ideologies, religions, and any social phenomenon. In other words, most of what we call reality is political opinion is a different thing. Actually subjective reality, and we often confuse subjective reality with objective reality, mainly because it seems so real that it seems impossible to us that it actually exists only within the human mind."

Like borders ...... which are made out of mud .... objective mud. The meaning we give to this mud is subjective. While mud is objective, the meaning we give to mud is subjective.

Yes, the border between nation X and nation Y would be a subjective definition, but the physical border would not. It would be that division appearing here and going there, which would be identifiable by anyone seeing it.

Quote:

The author you provided also stated that ...

"Subjective reality can also seem like objective reality when many people agree on and share the subjective reality."

And have we not agreed that mud can be borders? Mud is objective ... borders are nothing more or less than the meaning we give to them. Borders are not real and no arguing for the objectivity of mud can make them so.

The MEANING of anything is subjective, but the PHYSICAL appearance is objective. If you have a border with an objective appearance the border is an objective structure. The name of the border or the reason for its construction is not, but neither matter. Just as you can call "molecules" by any term so you can do with borders, that does not make the "molecule" subjective so nor does it make the "border" subjective.

Quote:

Was it me that brought up ideology? Probably. Since I am just a "little" concerned about ideology, I may have been the one who brought it up. 'Ideology' is dangerous, both of the religious and nationalistic kind. If it was me who brought it up, I stand accused. Paint me with it, because it is exactly this that I would love to talk about.

You can, but it still does not make the structure of a border subjective, which is what I have been saying.

Quote:

Quote:

I would never have guessed from the way you have tried to inject it into the discussion.Ideology is used to decide where a border is to be placed.

Ideology is the border !! No amount of mud or concrete or wood or any other naturally occurring material will make it so. Ideology is the border.

No. The physical structure creates a division we call a "border". That division is objective regardless of what you wish to call it, how it was determined to be placed there it is, or any differening beliefs on either side of the division. We see a structure called "Stonehenge" and we do not know why it was built or whether there was a specific ideology behind the location or construction, but we do know the structure is there because the structure is ojective.

Quote:

Quote:

Ummm no. Ideology is not a border or it would never change due to outside influences.

No. No. If "WE" did not have some ideas about why or how the planet needed to be separated into these ideas of countries and nationalism, borders would not exist!

If we did not have the idea to convert mud to bricks, bricks would not exist either. That does not make bricks subjective.

Quote:

The borders, all of them, are conceptual. They are ideas. They are ideological. The very fact that borders change due to "outside influences", or whatever influences, is testimony to the fact of their subjectivity. We move the mud around. We move the structures around as our ideas change, as our ideologies change, as our political motivations change.

Walk across the "conceptual" border between North and South Korea and tell me there are no physical aspects to the border. The border is a series of physical structures, which are by definition objective. I can build a house with brick and the house is objective regardless of the reason for which it was constructed.

Quote:

Quote:

As I stated, ideology is used in the decision of where a border will exist,

Ideology IS the border. The "where" borders exist is still ideological. Since borders are purely ideological in there very conception, wherever they are placed must also be ideological. It is not about "where", but rather, the very concept of borders!

I am guessing that you have never seen an actual border with a physical division.

Quote:

Quote:

but it is not a border which can be determined by an outside observer.

Outside or inside. The observer can only observe material which has been placed in certain locations due to ideology.

Yes, and that material is called what? A BORDER!

Quote:

If ideology did not place the mud or brick or wire in certain places for certain ideas, then what did?

Who cares? The reason for the placement does not affect the objective nature of the structure itself.

Quote:

What power does mud or any other naturally occurring material have? We give those objective material subjective meanings.

Yes, and the objective structures are still objective no matter what you call them.

Quote:

Quote:

Yes, that is true to a very large extent since border placement is subjective in many cases,

In ALL cases. ALL. Unless there happens to be a river, an ocean, a gulf that divides land mass in which case, we have naturally occurring space between land masses which have no need of ideology.

You do realize you disagreed with me and then agreed with my initial statement?

Quote:

Quote:

but the discussion was whether a border was objective and it is because the materials of which it is made is objective.

I have no argument that the materials used are objective.

Thus the structure is objective as well and you have my point. Regardless of what you call it the "border" structure is objective.

Quote:

Now, the border between two middle eastern desert countries, for example, will be more subjective because they are not able to be marked by those objective materials as well.

Quote:

Or the border between the US and Canada which is ideologically conceived over much mountainous terrain. Yet the map makers seem to know where these borders exist. But the powers that be only erect the brick and mortar at certain places. Both the 'borders' that only exist on maps over the mountainous terrain, and the ones that have been erected with brick and mortar, are subjective.

No, you are still confused on what is subjective or you are just trying to argue for the sake of doing so.

Quote:

Mud is mud, as is metal and wood, and whatever other material that could be used to place a naturally occurring material as symbolic of an ideology. Is it so radical to see the illusion of borders? It's not radical at all.

There is no illusion when the structure is visible and can be touched.

Quote:

Quote:

The symbolic aspect is subjective too. For example the swastika used in the Nazi symbolism has a much older connotation which is far less sinister.

Yes. The swastika is an ancient symbol which means "good fortune, luck and well-being". But let's please remember that even the letters of the English language (or any language) are nothing more than symbols. And words are symbols too. But the word or symbol is not the "actual" thing. They are only representative. Often the words obscure the actuality. Just as ideologies do.

All languages are subjective.

Quote:

Mud replaced by any other material is still material. What significance are you willing to give it? What word? What symbol? What representation? What idea?

Significance does not matter. It is objective in existence which is unaffected by any subjective significance.

Quote:

Quote:

The significance that it is a border.

We give it this significance, but on it's own, it is nothing but mud.

Not the structure of the border, which is where you are becoming confused.

Quote:

Quote:

That may be important or very important depending on the location.

Again, we give it significance regardless of location. It is not about location; it is about the subjectivity of a humanly conceived concept which would never be here, there, or anywhere, except for ideology.

The reason for it being or being placed where it is does not matter in whether it exists in the physical realm, which is what you are trying to say happens.

Quote:

Quote:

The border between the US and Canada, for example, would not be as significant as you approach as the border between North and South Korea. One is much more likely get you killed if you try to cross it illegally.

Yes. And this is why I am just a "little" concerned with ideologies of any kind. They are generally divisive.

That still does not make a physical border any less objective.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

The MEANING of anything is subjective, but the PHYSICAL appearance is objective. If you have a border with an objective appearance the border is an objective structure. The name of the border or the reason for its construction is not, but neither matter. Just as you can call "molecules" by any term so you can do with borders, that does not make the "molecule" subjective so nor does it make the "border" subjective.

Not quite. Molecules exist, no matter what we call them. So do roses. We invented neither.

The MEANING of anything is subjective, but the PHYSICAL appearance is objective. If you have a border with an objective appearance the border is an objective structure. The name of the border or the reason for its construction is not, but neither matter. Just as you can call "molecules" by any term so you can do with borders, that does not make the "molecule" subjective so nor does it make the "border" subjective.

Not quite. Molecules exist, no matter what we call them. So do roses. We invented neither.

Finally, you have said what I did in the first post on the subject and we are in agreement.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

That is what I have been saying all along because man-made borders are objective divisions for any outside observer.

Who is this "outside observer"? Is this outsider observed not different form the insider? Are they different?

An oustider observer would have no information on the subject, no expectations of whether there should or should not be anything, but only if there IS something there.

An inside observer could also say there is something there. But whether we are inside or outside the structure, the structure is still man-made. An inside observer could also see the objective structure which was erected from natural objective materials, .... but know that it is a human construction and therefore not real in the real sense. We made it up. We created the objective structures and then we gave meaning to them. These structures are objective, but they are objects that we made up. The reason we made them up .... Wouldn't you be interested in talking about that ......

Quote:

I know this is what you have been saying. I knew it along time ago. [/quote

Yet, you still try to claim it is not correct, which is where I appear to be wasting my time in trying to correct the various ways this brings in errors on your part.

Why be worried about being correct or not ..... In the beginning, you disagreed with my general statement, which produced some general conversation.

Quote:

And so do you it seems. Can we now explore this?

I very much know what I have been saying and what you have been saying and what you have been saying is incorrect when you say current borders are subjective and ignore the objective structures.

I truly am sorry Wayne, for being such a difficult subject. But borders are objective, as you say, but they are subjectively created. None of them would exist without ideology. They do not occur naturally. We made them up. Every single one of them.

That is what I have been saying all along because man-made borders are objective divisions for any outside observer.

Who is this "outside observer"? Is this outsider observed not different form the insider? Are they different?

An oustider observer would have no information on the subject, no expectations of whether there should or should not be anything, but only if there IS something there.

An inside observer could also say there is something there. But whether we are inside or outside the structure, the structure is still man-made. An inside observer could also see the objective structure which was erected from natural objective materials, .... but know that it is a human construction and therefore not real in the real sense. We made it up. We created the objective structures and then we gave meaning to them. These structures are objective, but they are objects that we made up. The reason we made them up .... Wouldn't you be interested in talking about that ......

Quote:

I know this is what you have been saying. I knew it along time ago.

Yet, you still try to claim it is not correct, which is where I appear to be wasting my time in trying to correct the various ways this brings in errors on your part.

Why be worried about being correct or not ..... In the beginning, you disagreed with my general statement, which produced some general conversation.

Quote:

And so do you it seems. Can we now explore this?

I very much know what I have been saying and what you have been saying and what you have been saying is incorrect when you say current borders are subjective and ignore the objective structures.

animal-friendly wrote:

I truly am sorry Wayne, for being such a difficult subject. But borders are objective, as you say, but they are subjectively created. None of them would exist without ideology. They do not occur naturally. We made them up. Every single one of them.

Why did we make them up ....

You are not being difficult, at least at the present time , because you are correct. The creation of most borders are purely subjective. I have to say most because some are natural features, such as coastlines which are objective in that they limit ease of expansion as well as define the border.

The end of WWI, for example, caused the creation of random borders which created problem in the Middle East that still haunt us today.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

You are not being difficult, at least at the present time , because you are correct. The creation of most borders are purely subjective. I have to say most because some are natural features, such as coastlines which are objective in that they limit ease of expansion as well as define the border.

Coastlines are just coastlines and forests are just forests. Neither can "limit ease of expansion" or " define "THE" border", as you say. What border? We can build a brick wall and call it a border and we can name a forest a border. Either way, the border is ideological.

Natural borders exist without our permission. They exist in spite of our political affiliations or opinions or nationalities

Coastlines are not objective because they limit anything you could possibly conceive of. Coastlines are not interested in you or the party you vote for.

Quote:

The end of WWI, for example, caused the creation of random borders which created problem in the Middle East that still haunt us today.

War does that. Einstein, who seems to have had some very interesting insights, both scientifically and otherwise, famously said 'no problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it' War will create more war. Violence begets violence. Karma is action and reaction. We are all suffering the karmic results of the outcome of war.

You are not being difficult, at least at the present time , because you are correct. The creation of most borders are purely subjective. I have to say most because some are natural features, such as coastlines which are objective in that they limit ease of expansion as well as define the border.

Coastlines are just coastlines and forests are just forests. Neither can "limit ease of expansion" or " define "THE" border", as you say.

Actually they do. That is what slowed European expansion westward was the coastlines defining how far to the west they could build houses. It also works for animals as there are different species in Europe than in North America.

Quote:

What border?

The border between this land and the oceans. This also means this land and all others around that water.

Quote:

We can build a brick wall and call it a border and we can name a forest a border. Either way, the border is ideological.

Yes, but the border of a landmass is there whether we define it or not and it is doing the job of a border by limiting passage.

Quote:

Natural borders exist without our permission.

So they define their border in spite of you just stating they did not?

Quote:

They exist in spite of our political affiliations or opinions or nationalities

Yes, which is why I said MOST borders were subjective. As you say natural borders are objective.

Quote:

Coastlines are not objective because they limit anything you could possibly conceive of

.

Except as you said above, they cannot limit "ease of expansion" ?

Quote:

Coastlines are not interested in you or the party you vote for.

Which would tend to make them objective, which you said they were not ......

Quote:

Quote:

The end of WWI, for example, caused the creation of random borders which created problem in the Middle East that still haunt us today.

War does that. Einstein, who seems to have had some very interesting insights, both scientifically and otherwise, famously said 'no problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it' War will create more war. Violence begets violence. Karma is action and reaction. We are all suffering the karmic results of the outcome of war.

It is not tied to a war, but the ignorance of rendomly drawing lines and ignoring the factors of race, religion, creed, culture, or anything else. A peaceful negotiation without a war has done the same thing as well.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

You are not being difficult, at least at the present time , because you are correct. The creation of most borders are purely subjective. I have to say most because some are natural features, such as coastlines which are objective in that they limit ease of expansion as well as define the border.

Coastlines are just coastlines and forests are just forests. Neither can "limit ease of expansion" or " define "THE" border", as you say.

Quote:

Actually they do. That is what slowed European expansion westward was the coastlines defining how far to the west they could build houses. It also works for animals as there are different species in Europe than in North America.

Yes, of course. When we go for a walk in the woods, a tree has fallen which creates a natural border. We must climb over it if we want to get to the "other side". I suppose you could call the fallen tree a border. But the fallen tree is just a fallen tree. It has no ideology unless we want to give it one. So when you say that natural features define "THE" border, I have to ask, what border? The naturally defining objective one, or the ideologically defined subjective one?

Quote:

What border?

The border between this land and the oceans. This also means this land and all others around that water.

Quote:

We can build a brick wall and call it a border and we can name a forest a border. Either way, the border is ideological.

Quote:

Yes, but the border of a landmass is there whether we define it or not and it is doing the job of a border by limiting passage.

But it has no idea that it is limiting passage. That is our idea.Natural borders exist without our permission.

Quote:

So they define their border in spite of you just stating they did not?

"They" do not define anything. We do.

They exist in spite of our political affiliations or opinions or nationalities.

Quote:

Yes, which is why I said MOST borders were subjective. As you say natural borders are objective.

Okay, but they are still just natural phenomenon. We can give them additional meaning if we want. Are you saying that naturally occurring borders have some sort of ideological merit? They certainly do if we impose some kind of meaning on them. But on there own, they just are as they are.

Quote:

Coastlines are not objective because they limit anything you could possibly conceive of

.

Quote:

Except as you said above, they cannot limit "ease of expansion" ?

Yes, they can limit ease of expansion, but that is not their fault!Coastlines are not interested in you or the party you vote for.

Quote:

Which would tend to make them objective, which you said they were not ......

They are objective, while ideology about them is subjective.

Quote:

Quote:

The end of WWI, for example, caused the creation of random borders which created problem in the Middle East that still haunt us today.

War does that. Einstein, who seems to have had some very interesting insights, both scientifically and otherwise, famously said 'no problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it' War will create more war. Violence begets violence. Karma is action and reaction. We are all suffering the karmic results of the outcome of war.

Quote:

It is not tied to a war, but the ignorance of rendomly drawing lines and ignoring the factors of race, religion, creed, culture, or anything else. A peaceful negotiation without a war has done the same thing as well.

For instance? Most borders arise from the ideology of nationalism and the result of war. Otherwise we would just have rivers and oceans and forests ... which have no ideology. They are objective. They are comprised of matter. Bricks and walls are also objective but they are usually constructed as a result of idea or ideology. Nationalism for example.

Are we going in circles yet? Maybe, instead of agreeing to disagree, we could just simply agree to agree?But if you will give objective and naturally occurring phenomenon subjective meaning, we will have to continue this banter. I will have to call it "fallen log syndrome".

I hate emoticons ..... but in the spirit of this discussion will add one anyway .... (apparently this one mean "eh") which is entirely culturally appropriate coming from a Canadian. But what's a "Canadian" anyway? eh?

You are not being difficult, at least at the present time , because you are correct. The creation of most borders are purely subjective. I have to say most because some are natural features, such as coastlines which are objective in that they limit ease of expansion as well as define the border.

Coastlines are just coastlines and forests are just forests. Neither can "limit ease of expansion" or " define "THE" border", as you say.

Quote:

Wayne Stollings wrote:

Actually they do. That is what slowed European expansion westward was the coastlines defining how far to the west they could build houses. It also works for animals as there are different species in Europe than in North America.

animal-friendly wrote:

Yes, of course. When we go for a walk in the woods, a tree has fallen which creates a natural border. We must climb over it if we want to get to the "other side". I suppose you could call the fallen tree a border. But the fallen tree is just a fallen tree. It has no ideology unless we want to give it one. So when you say that natural features define "THE" border, I have to ask, what border? The naturally defining objective one, or the ideologically defined subjective one?

You realize you had the answer to the question, right?

The border between this land and the oceans. This also means this land and all others around that water.

Quote:

Quote:

What border?

The border between this land and the oceans. This also means this land and all others around that water.

Quote:

Quote:

We can build a brick wall and call it a border and we can name a forest a border. Either way, the border is ideological.

Quote:

Yes, but the border of a landmass is there whether we define it or not and it is doing the job of a border by limiting passage.

But it has no idea that it is limiting passage.

It does not need to because it is objective, it just does.

Quote:

That is our idea.

No, we may know on a higher level but the flora and fauna also know of such borders.

Quote:

Natural borders exist without our permission.

Which is what makes them objective.

Quote:

Quote:

So they define their border in spite of you just stating they did not?

"They" do not define anything. We do.

Using the correct application of the definition of "define" for the context, they DO define the border.

Quote:

They exist in spite of our political affiliations or opinions or nationalities.

Subjective additions do not change the objective, which is why they are objective.

Quote:

Quote:

Yes, which is why I said MOST borders were subjective. As you say natural borders are objective.

Okay, but they are still just natural phenomenon.

Which makes them objective.

Quote:

We can give them additional meaning if we want. Are you saying that naturally occurring borders have some sort of ideological merit? They certainly do if we impose some kind of meaning on them. But on there own, they just are as they are.

The "meaning" attributed does not change the objective nature of the border they create.

Quote:

Quote:

Coastlines are not objective because they limit anything you could possibly conceive of

.

Quote:

Except as you said above, they cannot limit "ease of expansion" ?

Yes, they can limit ease of expansion, but that is not their fault!

Yes it is. They make it harder to walk, camp, find drinking water, etc. They are a natural border because they do these things.

Quote:

Coastlines are not interested in you or the party you vote for.

Great, that is why they are objective is it not?

Quote:

Quote:

Which would tend to make them objective, which you said they were not ......

They are objective, while ideology about them is subjective.

Ideology about everything is subjective and you keep trying to insert it everywhere.

Quote:

Quote:

The end of WWI, for example, caused the creation of random borders which created problem in the Middle East that still haunt us today.

War does that. Einstein, who seems to have had some very interesting insights, both scientifically and otherwise, famously said 'no problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it' War will create more war. Violence begets violence. Karma is action and reaction. We are all suffering the karmic results of the outcome of war.

Quote:

It is not tied to a war, but the ignorance of rendomly drawing lines and ignoring the factors of race, religion, creed, culture, or anything else. A peaceful negotiation without a war has done the same thing as well.

For instance?

The borders in the Middle East where we still have conflict. There was no thought to division by tribe, ethnic group, or anything when the divisions were created.

Quote:

Most borders arise from the ideology of nationalism and the result of war. Otherwise we would just have rivers and oceans and forests ... which have no ideology. They are objective. They are comprised of matter. Bricks and walls are also objective but they are usually constructed as a result of idea or ideology. Nationalism for example.

You are trying to agrue the same thing both ways, which does not reflect well on your position.

Quote:

Are we going in circles yet? Maybe, instead of agreeing to disagree, we could just simply agree to agree?

You are the one arguing that subjective views change objective borders, not I. Once you stop doing that we are in agreement.

Quote:

But if you will give objective and naturally occurring phenomenon subjective meaning, we will have to continue this banter. I will have to call it "fallen log syndrome".

That would be a strawman on your part. I never attributed subjective meaning to objective borders. You did that in the attempt to say I was incorrect.

Quote:

I hate emoticons ..... but in the spirit of this discussion will add one anyway .... (apparently this one mean "eh") which is entirely culturally appropriate coming from a Canadian. But what's a "Canadian" anyway? eh?

A Canadian is a JV American, of course ...

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

You are not being difficult, at least at the present time , because you are correct. The creation of most borders are purely subjective. I have to say most because some are natural features, such as coastlines which are objective in that they limit ease of expansion as well as define the border.

Coastlines are just coastlines and forests are just forests. Neither can "limit ease of expansion" or " define "THE" border", as you say.

Quote:

Wayne Stollings wrote:

Actually they do. That is what slowed European expansion westward was the coastlines defining how far to the west they could build houses. It also works for animals as there are different species in Europe than in North America.

animal-friendly wrote:

Yes, of course. When we go for a walk in the woods, a tree has fallen which creates a natural border. We must climb over it if we want to get to the "other side". I suppose you could call the fallen tree a border. But the fallen tree is just a fallen tree. It has no ideology unless we want to give it one. So when you say that natural features define "THE" border, I have to ask, what border? The naturally defining objective one, or the ideologically defined subjective one?

You realize you had the answer to the question, right?

The border between this land and the oceans. This also means this land and all others around that water.

Quote:

Quote:

What border?

The border between this land and the oceans. This also means this land and all others around that water.

Quote:

Quote:

We can build a brick wall and call it a border and we can name a forest a border. Either way, the border is ideological.

Quote:

Yes, but the border of a landmass is there whether we define it or not and it is doing the job of a border by limiting passage.

But it has no idea that it is limiting passage.

It does not need to because it is objective, it just does.

Quote:

That is our idea.

No, we may know on a higher level but the flora and fauna also know of such borders.

Quote:

Natural borders exist without our permission.

Which is what makes them objective.

Quote:

Quote:

So they define their border in spite of you just stating they did not?

"They" do not define anything. We do.

Using the correct application of the definition of "define" for the context, they DO define the border.

Quote:

They exist in spite of our political affiliations or opinions or nationalities.

Subjective additions do not change the objective, which is why they are objective.

Quote:

Quote:

Yes, which is why I said MOST borders were subjective. As you say natural borders are objective.

Okay, but they are still just natural phenomenon.

Which makes them objective.

Quote:

We can give them additional meaning if we want. Are you saying that naturally occurring borders have some sort of ideological merit? They certainly do if we impose some kind of meaning on them. But on there own, they just are as they are.

The "meaning" attributed does not change the objective nature of the border they create.

Quote:

Quote:

Coastlines are not objective because they limit anything you could possibly conceive of

.

Quote:

Except as you said above, they cannot limit "ease of expansion" ?

Yes, they can limit ease of expansion, but that is not their fault!

Yes it is. They make it harder to walk, camp, find drinking water, etc. They are a natural border because they do these things.

Quote:

Coastlines are not interested in you or the party you vote for.

Great, that is why they are objective is it not?

Quote:

Quote:

Which would tend to make them objective, which you said they were not ......

They are objective, while ideology about them is subjective.

Ideology about everything is subjective and you keep trying to insert it everywhere.

Quote:

Quote:

The end of WWI, for example, caused the creation of random borders which created problem in the Middle East that still haunt us today.

War does that. Einstein, who seems to have had some very interesting insights, both scientifically and otherwise, famously said 'no problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it' War will create more war. Violence begets violence. Karma is action and reaction. We are all suffering the karmic results of the outcome of war.

Quote:

It is not tied to a war, but the ignorance of rendomly drawing lines and ignoring the factors of race, religion, creed, culture, or anything else. A peaceful negotiation without a war has done the same thing as well.

For instance?

The borders in the Middle East where we still have conflict. There was no thought to division by tribe, ethnic group, or anything when the divisions were created.

Quote:

Most borders arise from the ideology of nationalism and the result of war. Otherwise we would just have rivers and oceans and forests ... which have no ideology. They are objective. They are comprised of matter. Bricks and walls are also objective but they are usually constructed as a result of idea or ideology. Nationalism for example.

You are trying to agrue the same thing both ways, which does not reflect well on your position.

Quote:

Are we going in circles yet? Maybe, instead of agreeing to disagree, we could just simply agree to agree?

You are the one arguing that subjective views change objective borders, not I. Once you stop doing that we are in agreement.

Quote:

But if you will give objective and naturally occurring phenomenon subjective meaning, we will have to continue this banter. I will have to call it "fallen log syndrome".

That would be a strawman on your part. I never attributed subjective meaning to objective borders. You did that in the attempt to say I was incorrect.

Quote:

I hate emoticons ..... but in the spirit of this discussion will add one anyway .... (apparently this one mean "eh") which is entirely culturally appropriate coming from a Canadian. But what's a "Canadian" anyway? eh?

A Canadian is a JV American, of course ...

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

You are not being difficult, at least at the present time , because you are correct. The creation of most borders are purely subjective. I have to say most because some are natural features, such as coastlines which are objective in that they limit ease of expansion as well as define the border.

Coastlines are just coastlines and forests are just forests. Neither can "limit ease of expansion" or " define "THE" border", as you say.

Quote:

Wayne Stollings wrote:

Actually they do. That is what slowed European expansion westward was the coastlines defining how far to the west they could build houses. It also works for animals as there are different species in Europe than in North America.

Yes. Agreed. Naturally occurring objects "limit ease of expansion". But in doing so, they do not become "THE" border. They only become "THE" border when ideology has convinced the ideologues that expanding is necessary. Expanding to where? Who is doing the expanding and why? In order to spread what? Without the idea, without religion, without the concept of nationality, without a whole host of other ambitions, the natural occurring objects would not even be called a border. They might be called the landscape or the terrain.

animal-friendly wrote:

Yes, of course. When we go for a walk in the woods, a tree has fallen which creates a natural border. We must climb over it if we want to get to the "other side". I suppose you could call the fallen tree a border. But the fallen tree is just a fallen tree. It has no ideology unless we want to give it one. So when you say that natural features define "THE" border, I have to ask, what border? The naturally defining objective one, or the ideologically defined subjective one?